[gnso-restruc-dt] Re: [council] Bylaw revisions - Article VII

[Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx>]

(i have replaced the council list with the restruct list in this email  
- so that those non council members participating in the restructuring  
discussion are included.  i have left the chair's names in because i  
don't know if they are on the restruct list, but removed names i knew  
were on the restruct list)
Hi,

This may also be an issue that is covered under the Nomcom review and  
not GNSO restructuring.
It is probably already too late for 2010 anyway. So there is time to  
talk about it in the context of nomcom changes.
There may also be a question on whether Nomcom will remain  
constituency based or SG based in the long run, but in the short term  
it can remain constituency based.  In asking what is special about a  
constituency, this may be a place where the constituency being the  
focal point is a good thing.
But i hope we can avoid needing to resolve this issue as a requirement  
for by-laws acceptance or seating of a new council in Seoul (at the  
very outside latest.)
a.




On 22 May 2009, at 11:09, Gomes, Chuck wrote:

> Good point Alan.  This sounds to be like an issue that may need to be
> considered by the GNSO Operations and/or the GNSO
> Constituency/Stakeholder Group WTs under the OSC, so I cc'd the chairs
> of those teams.
>
> Chuck
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Alan Greenberg
> > Sent: Friday, May 22, 2009 10:23 AM
> > To: Council GNSO
> > Subject: [council] Bylaw revisions - Article VII
> >
> >
> > We are working on the proposed Bylaw revisions for Articles X
> > and XX, and have been promised revisions related to Annex A,
> > but unless I missed it, we have had no discussion at all
> > about Article VII, regarding how Nominating Committee
> > delegates are selected. Since the seven GNSO delegates are
> > tied to the current Constituencies (2 for the BC and 1 for
> > each other Constituency), this would surely have to change in
> > the new model. At first glance, this is potentially a
> > controversial issue.
> >
> > Alan