RE: [gnso-restruc-dt] outstanding issues

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

Tim,

I think my problem is that I am confusing three timeframes: 1) current
Bylaws and Council; 2) any transition period needed; and 3) bicameral
Council with updated Bylaws.  I will try to do a better job of keeping
those separate.

Chuck 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-gnso-restruc-dt@xxxxxxxxx 
> [mailto:owner-gnso-restruc-dt@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Tim Ruiz
> Sent: Sunday, March 29, 2009 10:22 PM
> To: gnso-restruc-dt@xxxxxxxxx
> Subject: RE: [gnso-restruc-dt] outstanding issues
> 
> 
> 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
> > >
> >
> 
> 
>