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

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

Is there a more general term instead of 'sectoral' that would be more
encompassing?

Chuck

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Nevett, Jonathon [mailto:jnevett@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] 
> Sent: Tuesday, June 02, 2009 4:48 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.
> 
> I would be in favor of an aspirational statement encouraging 
> the SGs to take various forms of diversity into account in 
> selecting their representatives -- other than just 
> geographic.  If we go in that direction, we shouldn't just 
> mention sectoral diversity, as opposed to other forms of 
> diversity (e.g. racial, ethnic, gender etc. -- all of which 
> has been lacking in the GNSO).  
> 
> I am concerned with a requirement in the Bylaws that we 
> "ensure [both geographic and sectoral diversity] . . . as 
> appropriate."  When is it appropriate to have sectoral 
> diversity and when wouldn't it be appropriate?  How should 
> the SGs react to the "as appropriate" language?
> 
> 
> With just three seats, it is difficult to implement the 
> three-seat requirement for geographic diversity.  I am very 
> concerned about going beyond that with additional specific 
> diversity requirements.  Again, I am in favor of a statement 
> encouraging various other forms of diversity,
> just not requiring it.   
> 
> Thanks.
> 
> Jon
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Gomes, Chuck [mailto:cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx]
> Sent: Tuesday, June 02, 2009 4:21 PM
> To: Nevett, Jonathon; Milton L Mueller; Philip Sheppard; 
> gnso-restruc-dt@xxxxxxxxx
> Subject: RE: [gnso-restruc-dt] Q5 geo and diversity by-law
> 
> 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
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > 
>