ICANN ICANN Email List Archives


<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

RE: [gnso-geo-dg] proposed bylaw change Nom Com Board - adding domicile

  • To: "Philip Sheppard" <philip.sheppard@xxxxxx>, <gnso-geo-dg@xxxxxxxxx>
  • Subject: RE: [gnso-geo-dg] proposed bylaw change Nom Com Board - adding domicile
  • From: "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Wed, 24 Sep 2008 09:06:14 -0400

Although I agree that there will be wider debate once the community-wide
working group is formed, it does not seem inappropriate for the GNSO in
its comments to recommend consideration of citizenship and/or domicile
as criteria for measuring geo requirements of representatives.  What the
Council needs to decide is whether or not we want that to be part of our
comments.  All we are doing is submitting comments.


        From: owner-gnso-geo-dg@xxxxxxxxx
[mailto:owner-gnso-geo-dg@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Philip Sheppard
        Sent: Wednesday, September 24, 2008 6:53 AM
        To: gnso-geo-dg@xxxxxxxxx
        Subject: [gnso-geo-dg] proposed bylaw change Nom Com Board -
adding domicile
        While the proposal to add domicile as well as citizenship for
Nominating Committee Board selection is probably fine, it seems oddly
piecemeal to be proposing it at the same time as the issue of a wider
debate on regions and diversity is being promoted.

        I cant see why this part needs to be done NOW. 

        It seems to me to be better to have the wider debate first on
regions / citizenship / domicile and then implement a uniform change
across ICANN.

        Do others agree?



<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Cookies Policy