RE: [gnso-restruc-dt] outstanding issues

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

I agree with Tim on all points.

Chuck 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-gnso-restruc-dt@xxxxxxxxx 
> [mailto:owner-gnso-restruc-dt@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Tim Ruiz
> Sent: Monday, March 30, 2009 8:04 AM
> To: gnso-restruc-dt@xxxxxxxxx
> Subject: RE: [gnso-restruc-dt] outstanding issues
> 
> 
> Liz,
> 
> I don't think what you and I are suggesting is that 
> different. Each House should have input on the criteria they 
> think is best for an NCA in their House, but not actually 
> make the choice. The preferences of the NCAs themselves could 
> be another factor. But in my opinion, unless there is someone 
> assigned to make a definitive decision (at least when all 
> else fails), this just won't work well. However, I do 
> question the usefullness of having them float within a term. 
> Seems to add a layer complexity with little identifiable benefit.
> 
> Tim  
>  
>   -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: Re: [gnso-restruc-dt] outstanding issues
> From: Liz Williams <lizawilliams@xxxxxxx>
> Date: Mon, March 30, 2009 12:54 am
> To: Tim Ruiz <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> Cc: gnso-restruc-dt@xxxxxxxxx
> 
> 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
> 
> 
>