RE: [gnso-restruc-dt] Q5. In Section 3.1: Geographic distribution SG council members

[Milton L Mueller <mueller@xxxxxxx>]

Chuck:
I agree with the exception clause in the case of the contracting party house 
only. The Non-contracting House, which is supposed to be representative of 
global users, should have no trouble meeting diversity requirements. I note 
with amusement that NCUC will have no trouble meeting the even stronger 
diversity requirements required by our proposed NCSG charter, whereas the BC 
seems to need an exception - perhaps because it is really not every diverse or 
deep or representative. Perhaps we should consider taking some seats away from 
them in the Council, if they are unable to meet these simple, basic geographic 
diversity requirements. 

--MM

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-gnso-restruc-dt@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-restruc-
> dt@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Gomes, Chuck
> Sent: Wednesday, May 06, 2009 6:17 PM
> To: Margie Milam; Gnso-restruc-dt@xxxxxxxxx
> Subject: RE: [gnso-restruc-dt] Q5. In Section 3.1: Geographic distribution
> SG council members
> 
> 
> The questions below should focus only on the noncontracted/user house
> but they apply to the contracted house as well.  For both houses, I had
> recommended more flexible language to allow for exceptions when it was
> not possible to identify representatives who will qualified and
> available to serve from some geographic region(s).  In particular I
> recommended the following: "For Stakeholder Groups with three seats on
> the GNSO Council, no two representatives shall be citizens of the same
> country or of countries located in the same Geographic Region except in
> cases where a Stakeholder Group can demonstrate that there are no
> eligible and available member representatives from three different
> regions. For Stakeholder Groups with six seats on the GNSO Council, no
> four representatives shall be citizens of the same country or of
> countries in the same Geographic Region  except in cases where a
> Stakeholder Group can demonstrate that there are no eligible and
> available member representatives from four different regions."
> 
> Chuck
> 
> 
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: owner-gnso-restruc-dt@xxxxxxxxx
> > [mailto:owner-gnso-restruc-dt@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Margie Milam
> > Sent: Wednesday, May 06, 2009 12:18 PM
> > To: Gnso-restruc-dt@xxxxxxxxx
> > Subject: RE: [gnso-restruc-dt] Q5. In Section 3.1: Geographic
> > distribution SG council members
> >
> >
> > Dear All,
> >
> > To assist your discussions on these questions, I thought it
> > would be useful to provide the current proposed language on
> > the table related to these questions.
> >
> > Best Regards,
> >
> > Margie Milam
> > Senior Policy Counselor
> > ICANN
> > ______________________________________________________________
> > _________________________________________________
> >
> > Currently Proposed Revisions:
> >
> > Each Stakeholder Group may select representatives according
> > to its Charter procedures.  No individual representative may
> > hold more than one seat on the GNSO Council at the same time.
> >  For Stakeholder Groups with three seats on the GNSO Council,
> > no two representatives shall be citizens of the same country
> > or of countries located in the same Geographic Region except
> > in cases where a Stakeholder Group can demonstrate that there
> > are no eligible and available member representatives from
> > three different regions. For Stakeholder Groups with six
> > seats on the GNSO Council, no four representatives shall be
> > citizens of the same country or of countries in the same
> > Geographic Region  except in cases where a Stakeholder Group
> > can demonstrate that there are no eligible and available
> > member representatives from four different regions.
> > ______________________________________________________________
> > _________________________________________________
> >
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: owner-gnso-restruc-dt@xxxxxxxxx
> > [mailto:owner-gnso-restruc-dt@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Avri Doria
> > Sent: Tuesday, May 05, 2009 9:34 PM
> > To: Gnso-restruc-dt@xxxxxxxxx
> > Subject: [gnso-restruc-dt] Q5. In Section 3.1: Geographic
> > distribution SG council members
> >
> >
> > Q5. In Section 3.1: Geographic distribution SG council members
> >
> > a) A change was proposed that allowed:
> >
> > -  a Non Contracted Party SG to appoint up to 4 (increased
> > from 3) out of 6 council members from one geographic regions
> >
> >
> > Should the change be retained?
> >
> > b) A general question was also asked about the clause
> > allowing even these limits to be waived:
> >
> > - for the Non Contracted Parties in:
> >
> > except in cases where a Stakeholder Group can demonstrate
> > that there are no eligible and available member
> > representatives from four different regions.
> >
> > - for the Contracted Parties
> >
> > except in cases where a Stakeholder Group can demonstrate
> > that there are no eligible and available member
> > representatives from four different regions.
> >
> >
> > Does this languages need to be changed?
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >