<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 3.2//EN">
<HTML>
<HEAD>
<META HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type" CONTENT="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
<META NAME="Generator" CONTENT="MS Exchange Server version 6.5.7650.28">
<TITLE>RE: [NCUC-DISCUSS] GNSO Council Term Limits and LSE Reforms</TITLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY>
<!-- Converted from text/plain format -->
<BR>
<P><FONT SIZE=2>I agree with all that is said below.<BR>
<BR>
I'd like to also hear people's thoughts on other parts of the LSE report as well.<BR>
<BR>
Best,<BR>
<BR>
Frannie<BR>
<BR>
-----Original Message-----<BR>
From: Non-Commercial User Constituency on behalf of Mawaki Chango<BR>
Sent: Fri 10/20/2006 6:11 AM<BR>
To: NCUC-DISCUSS@LISTSERV.SYR.EDU<BR>
Subject: Re: [NCUC-DISCUSS] GNSO Council Term Limits and LSE Reforms<BR>
<BR>
>>>The term limits should be standardized across all constituencies.<BR>
<BR>
I surely am for the principle of term limit, and i agree with Robin's analysis and above statement: it's better for those constituencies that implement it to see the others do the same.<BR>
On a related note, it'd be good for NCUC to maintain a pool of experienced people who would help new councilors get up to speed by providing them with substantial background info, etc.<BR>
<BR>
Mawaki<BR>
<BR>
----- Original Message ----<BR>
From: Robin Gross <robin@IPJUSTICE.ORG><BR>
To: NCUC-DISCUSS@LISTSERV.SYR.EDU<BR>
Sent: Thursday, October 19, 2006 3:10:22 PM<BR>
Subject: Re: GNSO Council Term Limits and LSE Reforms<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
I found the part of the LSE Report on terms limits to be extremely<BR>
interesting and worthwhile.<BR>
<BR>
It was great to learn how well they work in constituencies like NCUC --<BR>
but then to see how it goes in the constituencies where there aren't<BR>
limits (like Biz) was even more interesting. The report showed how the<BR>
lack of term limits is a problem since the same people are there for<BR>
years and years and years the rest of the constituency feels unrepresented.<BR>
<BR>
And there is also the issue of unfairness between constituencies who<BR>
have term limits and those who do not. Those with term limits are at an<BR>
extreme disadvantage because it is always "new" people learning the<BR>
ropes. Those without term limits are in a better position to guide the<BR>
GNSO over a multi-year process towards their constituencies goals. It<BR>
is an extreme disadvantage for NCUC to have term limits when other<BR>
constituencies do not. However, I think its good for NCUC to have the<BR>
term limits.<BR>
<BR>
So I'm in favor of term limits for all GNSO councilors. The term limits<BR>
should be standardized across all constituencies.<BR>
<BR>
Robin<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
Milton Mueller wrote:<BR>
<BR>
>Hello all,<BR>
>There's an interesting movement afoot to quickly impose Council term<BR>
>limits, following the LSE recommendations. The fear is that if term<BR>
>limits are not imposed now, and quickly, that the Council members who<BR>
>implement the reforms would be status quo oriented and might block some<BR>
>needed reforms. (And no, people are not worried about Robin, Mawaki and<BR>
>Norbert in this regard). What do you all think of that?<BR>
><BR>
>NCUC already has term limits for GNSO Councillors built into its<BR>
>charter. Councillors can only serve two terms. The LSE report showed<BR>
>that we already have the most widely distributed representation and most<BR>
>turnover in Council membership.<BR>
> <BR>
><BR>
<BR>
</FONT>
</P>
</BODY>
</HTML>