RE: [gnso-restruc-dt] outstanding issues

["Nevett, Jonathon" <jnevett@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Liz:

 

Perhaps the NomCom applicants should indicate a preference of the three
positions in their statements of interest to the Nominating Committee
and it could be a factor in the NomCom's decision.  A potential
appointee might only want to sit in one house and not the other; might
only want to be the non-voting appointee with potential Council
leadership duties; or might be open to any of the three positions.
Hopefully, the NomCom wouldn't pick three individuals who only want to
sit in one specific house.  By indicating their willingness to sit in
any house in their statement of interest, for example, it would be
harder for an appointee to complain later that they didn't get the
position that they wanted.

 

Thanks.

 

Jon

 

 

 

________________________________

From: owner-gnso-restruc-dt@xxxxxxxxx
[mailto:owner-gnso-restruc-dt@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Liz Williams
Sent: Monday, March 30, 2009 1:55 AM
To: Tim Ruiz
Cc: gnso-restruc-dt@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [gnso-restruc-dt] outstanding issues

 

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