ICANN ICANN Email List Archives


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

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

  • To: "Olga Cavalli" <olgac@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Subject: RE: [gnso-geo-dg] proposed bylaw change Nom Com Board - adding domicile
  • From: "Tim Ruiz" <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Wed, 24 Sep 2008 13:31:51 -0700


I don't disagree that it should be considered by whatever WG is
ultimately formed. But I don't think it needs to hold up the bylaw
change requested by the NomCom, even if the bylaws will need to be
changed again as a result of the WG's outcomes.


-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: [gnso-geo-dg] proposed bylaw change Nom Com Board - adding
From: "Olga Cavalli" <olgac@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, September 24, 2008 3:09 pm
To: "Ken Stubbs" <kstubbs@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: "Tim Ruiz" <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx>, "Philip Sheppard"
<philip.sheppard@xxxxxx>, gnso-geo-dg@xxxxxxxxx

I think that some debate about the citizenship / domicile issue is
important at this stage of the discussion.
My concern in relation with domicile, is how anyone can measure the
relevance of citizenship vs. domicile.
If this is not well defined, then several misunderstanding may arise.

2008/9/24 Ken Stubbs <kstubbs@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Ken Stubbs wrote: 

Having been on the nomcom 2 times, I can tell you that this issue
surfaced in both years of my tenure.
The recommendations represent  a very good interim solution. 

Your comments are right on target here Tim.

Ken Stubbs

Tim Ruiz wrote: 
I more or less agree, but perhaps the reason is that the NomCom needs to
do a lot of its recruiting before any WG is formed, or completes it
work. So the change will allow them to proceed, but there could be
further refinement of the requirement as result of the later WG.


-------- Original Message --------
Subject: [gnso-geo-dg] proposed bylaw change Nom Com Board - adding
From: "Philip Sheppard" mailto:philip.sheppard@xxxxxx
Date: Wed, September 24, 2008 5:53 am
To: mailto:gnso-geo-dg@xxxxxxxxx

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?


No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com 
Version: 8.0.169 / Virus Database: 270.7.0/1683 - Release Date:
9/21/2008 10:10 AM


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

Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Cookies Policy