<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
RE: [gnso-restruc-dt] Q5 geo and diversity by-law
- To: "Liz Williams" <lizawilliams@xxxxxxx>
- Subject: RE: [gnso-restruc-dt] Q5 geo and diversity by-law
- From: "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 3 Jun 2009 09:00:24 -0400
Thanks Liz. I like the concept of 'skills diversity' but also think
that 'interest group' (constituency/sector/whatever) diversity is also
important.
Chuck
________________________________
From: Liz Williams [mailto:lizawilliams@xxxxxxx]
Sent: Wednesday, June 03, 2009 1:25 AM
To: Gomes, Chuck
Cc: gnso-restruc-dt@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [gnso-restruc-dt] Q5 geo and diversity by-law
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
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|