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

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

Philip,

I suggest that you send whatever your final proposal is to the
Restructure list for consideration along with the one that Milton, Olga
and I support.  Then we can discuss both of them in the full group and
hopefully at least reach rough consensus on a position.

Chuck 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-gnso-restruc-dt@xxxxxxxxx 
> [mailto:owner-gnso-restruc-dt@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Milton L Mueller
> Sent: Tuesday, June 02, 2009 10:18 AM
> To: gnso-restruc-dt@xxxxxxxxx
> Subject: RE: [gnso-restruc-dt] Q5 diversity by-law
> 
> 
> 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.
> > 
> 
> 
>