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

["Tim Ruiz" <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Sorry I was not on the call. Trying to catch up on the groups work so
may be missing some of the arguments one way or the other. However, at
this point, I would not support the *sectorally diverse* language. If it
is not required, and it should not be, it has no place in the bylaws.

Tim  

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: RE: [gnso-restruc-dt] Q5 geo and diversity by-law
From: Milton L Mueller <mueller@xxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, June 02, 2009 4:18 pm
To: "Nevett, Jonathon" <jnevett@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, 
"gnso-restruc-dt@xxxxxxxxx" <gnso-restruc-dt@xxxxxxxxx>



Good question, Jon. 
I tried to oppose the sectoral diversity language, because "sector" is
an arbitrary term (there are thousands of different industry sectors)
and when you start combining sectors and geo regions things can get
sticky fast. The other danger was that sectoral diversity could easily
be used to weasel out of geographic diversity requirements. But since
the final language (as you astutely note) only requires geographic
diversity I was willing to accept the compromise. ;-)

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Nevett, Jonathon [mailto:jnevett@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
> 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
>