RE: [gnso-restruc-dt] Sectoral diversity noow constituency diversity

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

I would not oppose the use of 'constituency' instead of 'sector' but I
have concerns that 'constituency' very often refers to a specific 'GNSO
Constituency' so it could create some confusion.  I do believe though
that 'constituency' is a better term than 'sector'.  Would a term like
'interest group' work?

Chuck 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-gnso-restruc-dt@xxxxxxxxx 
> [mailto:owner-gnso-restruc-dt@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Philip Sheppard
> Sent: Wednesday, June 03, 2009 3:31 AM
> To: gnso-restruc-dt@xxxxxxxxx
> Subject: [gnso-restruc-dt] Sectoral diversity noow 
> constituency diversity
> 
> 
> 
> To clarify.
> I first used the term sectoral diversity to reflect primarily 
> the known three constituencies in the CSG and potential new 
> ones on the NCSG.
> Milton pointed out it could be confused with industry sectors.
> I  have since dropped the term sector and used instead 
> "constituency" which has a known meaning within ICANN.
> 
> Hence, in the last iteration the proposed opening text read: 
> "Stakeholder Groups should ensure their representation on the 
> GNSO Council is diverse both by constituency and geography".
> 
> I trust at least this is supported by all ?
> 
> Philip
> 
> 
> 
>