Re: [gnso-arr-dt] Some ideas for a process for GNSO endorsement of AoC Review Team Volunteers

["Zahid Jamil" <zahid@xxxxxxxxx>]

I do think Rafik makes a valid point.





Sincerely,

Zahid Jamil
Barrister-at-law
Jamil & Jamil
Barristers-at-law
219-221 Central Hotel Annexe
Merewether Road, Karachi. Pakistan
Cell: +923008238230
Tel: +92 21 5680760 / 5685276 / 5655025
Fax: +92 21 5655026
www.jamilandjamil.com
 
Notice / Disclaimer
This message contains confidential information and its contents are being 
communicated only for the intended recipients . If you are not the intended 
recipient you should not disseminate, distribute or copy this e-mail.
Please notify the sender immediately by e-mail if you have received this 
message by mistake and delete it from your system. The contents above may 
contain/are the intellectual property of Jamil & Jamil, Barristers-at-Law, and 
constitute privileged information protected by attorney client privilege. The 
reproduction, publication, use, amendment, modification of any kind whatsoever 
of any part or parts (including photocopying or storing it in any medium by 
electronic means whether or not transiently or incidentally or some other use 
of this communication) without prior written permission and consent of Jamil & 
Jamil is prohibited.


Sent from my BlackBerry® wireless device

-----Original Message-----
From: Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Sat, 6 Feb 2010 15:12:05 
To: Gomes, Chuck<cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: <gnso-arr-dt@xxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [gnso-arr-dt] Some ideas for a process for GNSO endorsement of 
        AoC Review Team Volunteers

Hi Chuck,

I don't think that we can compromise in that point as the ongoing
internationalization of ICANN is critical and I guess that is subject to
accountability too.
with a real constraint, we may urge SGs to involve their members from
less-represented regions.
the same case may happen somehow for gender balance too.

Regards

Rafik

2010/2/4 Gomes, Chuck <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>

>  Thanks Rafik.  How would you suggest changing the process?  The proposed
> wording is: "No more than two volunteers should come from the same
> geographical region."  The key word is "should"; that was intentional
> because if there are not qualified, volunteers from enough geographic
> regions, what would we do?  The goal would be to not have more that two from
> any one region, but that may not be achievable.
>
> Chuck
>
>  ------------------------------
> *From:* Rafik Dammak [mailto:rafik.dammak@xxxxxxxxx]
> *Sent:* Thursday, February 04, 2010 2:03 AM
>
> *To:* Gomes, Chuck
> *Cc:* gnso-arr-dt@xxxxxxxxx
> *Subject:* Re: [gnso-arr-dt] Some ideas for a process for GNSO endorsement
> of AoC Review Team Volunteers
>
>
> Hi Chuck,
>
>
>    "have less than three geographic regions represented. ".
>>
>>
>
> I am uncomfortable with this point because in practice some regions wasn't
> enough represented and this will allow the status quo for RT.
>
> if it is not late, no objection for extension.
>
> Regards
>
> rafik
>
>