RE: [gnso-arr-dt] Draft permanent RT endorsement process
Thanks Bill. I just caught a few small typos - revisions attached. We seem to have relaxed the gender diversity requirement? We previously said no more than 2/3 coming from one gender and now we are saying the applicants can't all be of the one gender. That change is fine by me but I just wondered if I had missed that discussion somewhere along the way. Are we expecting the Council to be ready to vote on additional candidates if the diversity needs piece kicks in? It strikes me that some preparation might need to be done if that need arises as I don't know if Councilors would be ready to vote on the call straight away. Perhaps we can avoid this difficulty by doing some prep work beforehand to figure out who will end up as being endorsed......or we see how we get on and if some folks aren't ready, we do a quick follow up Council call? Caroline. -----Original Message----- From: owner-gnso-arr-dt@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-arr-dt@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of William Drake Sent: 25 May 2010 14:22 To: gnso-arr-dt@xxxxxxxxx Subject: [gnso-arr-dt] Draft permanent RT endorsement process Hi, Sorry, I'm really swamped with other stuff, so the attached was drafted fairly quickly and may need some fine tuning of language. But we needed somewhere to start, and I think it captures the points people have raised in moving toward a simplified model; let me know if not. Let's tinker and tweak and then get it off to the SGs for buy-in. Thanks, Bill Attachment:
Proposed Permanent Process for GNSO Endorsement of Nominees to AoC RTs v 1.doc
|