RE: [gnso-restruc-dt] outstanding issues

["Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Liz,
 
Please see my comments below.
 
Chuck


________________________________

        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.
        [Gomes, Chuck] I think it could just as easily be perceived as
short sighted to do otherwise but there is probably little value in
arguing that point. 

        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.[Gomes, Chuck]   Note
that there may not be any formal House structure and hence may not be
any House officers.  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.[Gomes, Chuck]  In my opinion, this complicates
the learning curve for the NomCom appointees. 

        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.[Gomes, Chuck]   I think
this assumes that there is some sort of formal House structure and that
may or may not be the case and may be different by House.  It is quite
possible that the Houses will merely be paper constructs for voting
purposes only.  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