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

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

I understand your point Jon but I like having it there to at least make
the point that geographic diversity should not be considered to the
exclusion of other types of diversity that are also important.

Chuck 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Nevett, Jonathon [mailto:jnevett@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] 
> Sent: Tuesday, June 02, 2009 4:11 PM
> To: Gomes, Chuck; Milton L Mueller; Philip Sheppard; 
> gnso-restruc-dt@xxxxxxxxx
> Subject: RE: [gnso-restruc-dt] Q5 geo and diversity by-law
> 
> Thanks Chuck.
> 
> Personally, I support deleting the reference to sectoral 
> diversity in the draft provision.  It should be up to each 
> Stakeholder Group to have that requirement in their charters 
> if applicable. Having the "as appropriate" language in the 
> first sentence provides next to no guidance to the SG on how 
> to implement, so it's better to delete.
> 
> Thanks.
> 
> Jon
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Gomes, Chuck [mailto:cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx]
> Sent: Tuesday, June 02, 2009 4:02 PM
> To: Nevett, Jonathon; Milton L Mueller; Philip Sheppard; 
> gnso-restruc-dt@xxxxxxxxx
> Subject: RE: [gnso-restruc-dt] Q5 geo and diversity by-law
> 
> Jon,
> 
> Philip first suggested this term.  One element of it has to 
> do with industry sectors.  So for example, in the CSG there 
> are different sectors such as the financial sector, the 
> e-commerce sector, etc.  For the RySG, I translate it to mean 
> sectors like city gTLDs, sponsored gTLDs, open gTLDs, 
> community gTLDs etc.  While recgonizing that it is very 
> difficult to measure (in contrast to geographical diversity), 
> the intent was to emphasize that geographical diversity is 
> just one area of diversity that should be considered even 
> though geographic diversity has special importance.
> 
> Chuck 
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: owner-gnso-restruc-dt@xxxxxxxxx 
> > [mailto:owner-gnso-restruc-dt@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of 
> Nevett, Jonathon
> > Sent: Tuesday, June 02, 2009 3:51 PM
> > To: Milton L Mueller; Philip Sheppard; gnso-restruc-dt@xxxxxxxxx
> > Subject: RE: [gnso-restruc-dt] Q5 geo and diversity by-law
> > 
> > 
> > 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
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
>