Re: [gnso-restruc-dt] outstanding issues

[Liz Williams <lizawilliams@xxxxxxx>]

Hello Tim & Chuck & everyone

I have been thinking about the role of the Nominating Committee  
representatives -- I am one of the BC elected reps to the Nominating  
Committee.  Of course, the group needs to get broader input on that  
from others in the Nominating Committee realm about how to be most  
constructive.  My personal thoughts are that it would be short  
sighted to have the Nominating Committee's remit extended into  
appointing particular people to particular spots.
I would have thought it more sensible to have the list of the three  
Nominating Committee representatives prepared and then seek the  
guidance of, say, the existing chair and the chairs of the two houses  
to balance up where the NomCom reps should be seated.  There is also  
nothing to stop us rotating the NomCom reps through each of the  
houses and the floating spot, given that they have two year terms.
In practice though I would have thought that a good Nominating  
Committee rep would "sit" with a house but be capable of moving and  
consulting and learning through the two houses.  That element is  
something that, I think, needs to be fed back into the Nominating  
Committee when they are doing the fine balancing act of finding the  
right people for the right places for the right time.  That changes  
each year and it certainly changes depending on the Statements of  
Interest.
Best wishes.

Liz
....
Liz Williams
+44 1963 364 380 tel
+44 7824 8777 57 mob




On 30 Mar 2009, at 03:22, Tim Ruiz wrote:

> 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