I found the part of the LSE Report on terms limits to be extremely 
interesting and worthwhile.

It was great to learn how well they work in constituencies like NCUC -- 
but then to see how it goes in the constituencies where there aren't 
limits (like Biz) was even more interesting.  The report showed how the 
lack of term limits is a problem since the same people are there for 
years and years and years the rest of the constituency feels unrepresented.

And there is also the issue of unfairness between constituencies who 
have term limits and those who do not.  Those with term limits are at an 
extreme disadvantage because it is always "new" people learning the 
ropes.  Those without term limits are in a better position to guide the 
GNSO over a multi-year process towards their constituencies goals.  It 
is an extreme disadvantage for NCUC to have term limits when other 
constituencies do not.  However, I think its good for NCUC to have the 
term limits.

So I'm in favor of term limits for all GNSO councilors.  The term limits 
should be standardized across all constituencies.

Robin


Milton Mueller wrote:

>Hello all, 
>There's an interesting movement afoot to quickly impose Council term
>limits, following the LSE recommendations. The fear is that if term
>limits are not imposed now, and quickly, that the Council members who
>implement the reforms would be status quo oriented and might block some
>needed reforms. (And no, people are not worried about Robin, Mawaki and
>Norbert in this regard). What do you all think of that? 
>
>NCUC already has term limits for GNSO Councillors built into its
>charter. Councillors can only serve two terms. The LSE report showed
>that we already have the most widely distributed representation and most
>turnover in Council membership. 
>  
>