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

["Nevett, Jonathon" <jnevett@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

<Geographic diversity requirements should not vary depending on the
number of representatives a stakeholder group sends to the council>  

Steve, I don't disagree with you on that point.  Should we then think
about using percentages vs. number of seats?

Perhaps something like no more than 33% of the seats may be held by SG
representatives from the same region?

Thanks.

Jon

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-gnso-restruc-dt@xxxxxxxxx
[mailto:owner-gnso-restruc-dt@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Metalitz, Steven
Sent: Wednesday, June 03, 2009 9:20 AM
To: Philip Sheppard; gnso-restruc-dt@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [gnso-restruc-dt] Q5 diversity by-law


I support Philip's formulation below.  Geographic diversity requirements
should not vary depending on the number of representatives a stakeholder
group sends to the council.  The Board left it up to each stakeholder
group to propose a number, as I recall.  This choice was made without
any expectation that it would bring with it the consequences regarding
geographic diversity that the Chuck/Milton/Olga proposal would entail.  

Steve

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-gnso-restruc-dt@xxxxxxxxx
[mailto:owner-gnso-restruc-dt@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Philip Sheppard
Sent: Tuesday, June 02, 2009 4:20 AM
To: gnso-restruc-dt@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: [gnso-restruc-dt] Q5 diversity by-law



Further to my earlier mail let me suggest a possible compromise which in
essence
keeps the same diversity rule as we have today and thus requires the
registries
to move their ground please !

Principles to be met in diversity rules
1. Diversity should be both by constituency and geography.
2. There should be the same diversity rule for each SG ie one
independent of the
number of representatives.

-----------------------------------
Current by-law:
"No two representatives selected by a Constituency shall be citizens of
the same
country or of countries located in the same Geographic Region".

This meets both principles.
-------------------------------------------

Original staff proposal:
"For Stakeholder Groups with three seats on the GNSO Council, no two
representatives shall be citizens of the same country or of countries
located in
the same Geographic Region. For Stakeholder Groups with six seats on the
GNSO
Council, no THREE representatives shall be citizens of the same country
or of
countries in the same Geographic Region".

This fails both principles.
-------------------------------------------

This proposal from the discussion team: 

"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."

This fails both principles. And it is very complex !
---------------------------------------------
Suggested compromise text:
"Stakeholder Groups should ensure their representation on the GNSO
Council is
diverse both by constituency and geography.
A minimum of three ICANN geographical regions will always be represented
by each
Stakeholder Group. 
In special circumstances this requirement may be waived by a 2/3 vote of
both
houses."

This meets both principles.