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

[Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@xxxxxxxxx>]

It may only become an issue if there are other constituencies 
approved by the Board prior to the deadline for naming new NomCom 
delegates. At that time it could become a question of (to paraphrase 
George Orwell) some Constituencies being more equal than others.
Alan

At 22/05/2009 02:04 PM, Gomes, Chuck wrote:

> 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
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >
> > >
> >
> >