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

[Liz Williams <lizawilliams@xxxxxxx>]

Hello everyone

Another way of looking at this is that the Council needs a variety of  
skills to help it work properly.  That doesn't come from sectors or  
regions or geographic locations.  From a Nominating Committee  
perspective, I would look at the aggregate of the group; identify  
gaps and then seek to fill them with a skill set that is balanced  
across the group.  Not a perfect science and a shifting evaluation  
each year.
I would leave out reference to sectors  but incorporate some language  
about the value of skills diversity.  This is what is done on all  
well run boards and it should be done here as well.
Liz
...

Liz Williams
+44 1963 364 380
+44 7824 877 757



On 2 Jun 2009, at 22:37, Gomes, Chuck wrote:

> 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