RE: [gnso-restruc-dt] outstanding issues

["Tim Ruiz" <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Regarding 12, I was thinking within a single SG not a House, but
probably wasn't clear about that. But I think the way it is spelled out
in the bylaws works well, probably better.

Tim 
 
  -------- Original Message --------
Subject: RE: [gnso-restruc-dt] outstanding issues
From: "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Sun, March 29, 2009 4:49 pm
To: "Tim Ruiz" <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx>, <gnso-restruc-dt@xxxxxxxxx>


Thanks for the responses Tim. I didn't mean to imply that I thought
there was a lot work, but I do believe that there is more to do than
just finish one item. Rather than complicate the redlined document
further, here are my responses to Tim's comments that were added to
mine:

3. I am okay with Tim's suggestion: ". . set a single target end date
for completion of all tasks and say that our work plan is proceeding on
the basis of hitting that date." 

9. I am not ready to concede the responsibility of apportioning NomCom
reps to houses solely to the NomCom yet. I personally would like to
discuss this further. At a minimum, I think it would be helpful to
provide the NomCom some guidelines for the NomCom reps for each house
and possibly for the nonvoting seat as well. For example, as I said
elsewhere in this discussion, I think it would be beneficial for the
NomCom rep in the contracted party house to have some basic
understanding of the business and operations of registries and
registrars; certainly, some of this can be learned but the smaller the
learning curve, the sooner someone can become productive, the better.
It is not my place to speak for the users house, but I would think that
it would be useful if the NomCom rep in that house had a balance of
experience in both the commercial and non-commercial world and no
evidence of bias toward commercial or noncommercial interests. Looking
ahead to Tim's comment for item 10, I don't think we are far apart.

11. I do not see my question regarding the GAC as a big issue. I am
okay if we leave it as is but I simply wanted to raise the issue.

12. I don't understand how this approach works for geographic diversity
requirements for the User SGs: "No two Councilors from the same
Geographic region." Would they then only be allowed five Councilors
until the Bylaws are changed? What am I missing here.

Chuck



> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-gnso-restruc-dt@xxxxxxxxx 
> [mailto:owner-gnso-restruc-dt@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Tim Ruiz
> Sent: Friday, March 27, 2009 12:21 PM
> To: gnso-restruc-dt@xxxxxxxxx
> Subject: RE: [gnso-restruc-dt] outstanding issues
> 
> I think there is some work left to do on a few, but perhaps 
> not as much as Chuck. A few that do need work we should be 
> able to knock them off quickly, understanding that elements 
> may evolve as we see how the new structure works. Spending 
> too much time trying to get it perfect is pointless.
> 
> My comments and suggestions are in the attached.
> 
> Tim 
> 
> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: RE: [gnso-restruc-dt] outstanding issues
> From: "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Date: Thu, March 26, 2009 1:51 pm
> To: "Philip Sheppard" <philip.sheppard@xxxxxx>, 
> <gnso-restruc-dt@xxxxxxxxx>
> 
> I would agree that a lot of items are done but also think 
> there is more than one that still needs work. My comments are 
> highlighted in the attached file.
> 
> Chuck 
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: owner-gnso-restruc-dt@xxxxxxxxx 
> > [mailto:owner-gnso-restruc-dt@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of 
> Philip Sheppard
> > Sent: Thursday, March 26, 2009 10:19 AM
> > To: gnso-restruc-dt@xxxxxxxxx
> > Subject: [gnso-restruc-dt] outstanding issues
> > 
> > Avri,
> > I agree with your proposals and having revisited the list 
> believe all 
> > but one item is done and ready for Council approval.
> > I attach suggested way forward.
> > The only item left is any voting thresholds not yet addressed.
> > 
> > Philip
> >
>