RE: [gnso-restruc-dt] Q5 diversity by-law

[Milton L Mueller <mueller@xxxxxxx>]

Philip:
The discussion team option meets the geographic diversity principle, recognizes 
the important difference between contracted and non-contracted houses, and has 
more support than your proposed "compromise" is likely to get. 

I don't see your new proposal below as a constructive one at this stage; it 
ignores the work of the discussion group and it constitutes a complete and 
precipitous change in your own position. In the space of a week, you have moved 
from proposing that three (3) of six (6) Council representatives could come 
from the same country or region, to now advocating that NO (0) such duplication 
would be possible with NO waiver mechanism to provide flexibility in hardship 
cases. I am wondering what accounts for this sudden turnaround in your 
position. 

--MM

> -----Original Message-----
> Further to my earlier mail let me suggest a possible compromise which in
> essence keeps the same diversity rule as we have today and thus requires the
> registries
> to move their ground please !
> 
> Principles to be met in diversity rules
> 1. Diversity should be both by constituency and geography.
> 2. There should be the same diversity rule for each SG ie one independent
> of the
> number of representatives.
> 
> -----------------------------------
> Current by-law:
> "No two representatives selected by a Constituency shall be citizens of
> the same
> country or of countries located in the same Geographic Region".
> 
> This meets both principles.
> -------------------------------------------
> 
> Original staff proposal:
> "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. For Stakeholder Groups with six seats on the
> GNSO
> Council, no THREE representatives shall be citizens of the same country or
> of
> countries in the same Geographic Region".
> 
> This fails both principles.
> -------------------------------------------
> 
> This proposal from the discussion team:
> 
> "Stakeholder Groups should ensure their representation on the GNSO Council
> is
> both geographically and sectorally diverse as appropriate.  If the number
> of
> allocated Council seats for a Stakeholder Group is less than the number of
> ICANN
> geographic regions, the applicable SG should select Councilors who are
> each from
> different geographic regions.  If the number of allocated Council seats
> for a
> Stakeholder Group is greater than or equal to the number of ICANN
> geographic
> regions, the applicable SG should select at least one Councilor from each
> geographic region.  In all cases no more than two Stakeholder Group
> Council
> representatives may be from the same ICANN geographic region; any
> exception to
> this requirement must be approved by a 2/3 vote of both houses."
> 
> This fails both principles. And it is very complex !
> ---------------------------------------------
> Suggested compromise text:
> "Stakeholder Groups should ensure their representation on the GNSO Council
> is
> diverse both by constituency and geography.
> A minimum of three ICANN geographical regions will always be represented
> by each
> Stakeholder Group.
> In special circumstances this requirement may be waived by a 2/3 vote of
> both
> houses."
> 
> This meets both principles.
>