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

["Nevett, Jonathon" <jnevett@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Milton/Chuck/Olga:

I have one question about the proposed language.  What is the meaning
and the intent behind the requirement of being "sectorally" diverse?
Other than the one reference to sectoral diversity in the first
sentence, the rest of the provision only seems to relate to geographic
diversity.

Thanks.

Jon

-----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 10:08 AM
To: Philip Sheppard; gnso-restruc-dt@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [gnso-restruc-dt] Q5 geo and diversity by-law


Actually three of us (Chuck, myself and Olga) agreed on the following
formulation:

"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."

Philip did not express opposition to this directly, although I judge
from his comments now that he does not support it. Anyway, the
formulation above is acceptable to the supermajority of the GNSO. 

--MM

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-gnso-restruc-dt@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-restruc-
> dt@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Philip Sheppard
> Sent: Tuesday, June 02, 2009 4:04 AM
> To: gnso-restruc-dt@xxxxxxxxx
> Subject: [gnso-restruc-dt] Q5 geo and diversity by-law
> 
> 
> 
> Not sure if Q5 was discussed yesterday but our small group did not
reach
> agreement.
> As a guide to what we are trying for the following may help.
> 
> Background
> - Today (and for the past 10  years) constituencies have managed to
find 3
> reps
> from 3 different regions.
> - Tomorrow, the pool of potential reps should in principle be greater
for
> all
> constituencies.
> - There are 3 variants of the constituency to SG transition: a) linear
for
> the
> R&Rs, b) a merger for Commercial users, c) potential growth for non-
> commercial
> users.
> 
> Principles to be met in diversity rules
> 1. Diversity should be both by constituency and geography.
> 2. The BC (and the CSG) want the same diversity rule for each SG ie
one
> independent of the number of representatives.
> 
> ---------------------------------------
> We would support any formulation that meets these 2 principles.
> (The BC does not seek less stringent rules than today).
> 
> Philip