Re: [gnso-restruc-dt] outstanding issues

[Liz Williams <lizawilliams@xxxxxxx>]

Hi Jon

Yes, that's a good idea but we would have to provide the nominating  
committee with instructions to do that.  We'd also have to provide  
instructions to potential applicants for GNSO positions -- the  
current system asks potential applicants to specify their order of  
priority for what they want (Board, GNSO, ALAC, ccNSO whatever).  No  
trouble to do, it just takes some longer term planning and doesn't  
get us out of the immediate transition question.
Best wishes.

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




On 30 Mar 2009, at 12:48, Nevett, Jonathon wrote:

> 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