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

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

I personally do not think that this is a gating issue for seating the
bicameral council.  Why would it be?

Chuck 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-gnso-restruc-dt@xxxxxxxxx 
> [mailto:owner-gnso-restruc-dt@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Avri Doria
> Sent: Friday, May 22, 2009 12:14 PM
> To: gnso-restruc-dt@xxxxxxxxx
> Cc: Ray Fassett
> Subject: [gnso-restruc-dt] Re: [council] Bylaw revisions - Article VII
> 
> 
> (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
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> 
>