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

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

As you can tell Jon, I have concerns about using the word 'constituency'
for the very reason you state, i.e., some will associate it with
Constituency.

Possible amendments to the RySG charter could look like the following
regarding the selection of Council reps:

- ICANN Bylaws requirements regarding geographic diversity should be
met.

- To the extent possible, in meeting Bylaws geographic requirements, the
RySG should consider such factors as registry interest group and
individual skills diversity.

- In cases where geographic diversity requirements and/or goals cannot
be met, the RySG should follow Bylaws requirements and GNSO Rules of
Procedure to request possible exceptions.

Looking at the present RyC situation, there are seven registries located
in the North American region, six in the European region and one in the
Asia Pacific region, with one more pending from Europe.  Hopefully that
will broaden considerably in the future, but that will not happen until
probably late in 2010 at the soonest, and even then, new registries may
be so busy getting up and running that their ability to participate
actively in the RySG and the GNSO may be limited.  In the meantime, we
will have limited choices of available Council representatives and our
one representative from the Asia Pacific region will be termed out.  All
we are looking for is some flexibility so that we are not forced into a
situation where we have to select a representative strictly on
geographic diversity and thereby sacrifice other important
qualifications such as availability to serve, appropriate skill sets to
facilitate effectiveness, and providing representativeness of different
interest groups within the RySG.

I understand the goal to make the requirements exactly the same for all
SGs.  Simplicity is nice if it works.  But the reality is that each SG
has its own unique issues and to ignore those for the sake of simplicity
seems unwise.

Chuck
 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Nevett, Jonathon [mailto:jnevett@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] 
> Sent: Wednesday, June 03, 2009 9:32 AM
> To: Gomes, Chuck; gnso-restruc-dt@xxxxxxxxx
> Subject: RE: [gnso-restruc-dt] Sectoral diversity now 
> constituency diversity
> 
> Chuck:
> 
> How would you recommend that the RyC amend its Charter to 
> "ensure constituency [or Constituency or sectoral or interest 
> group] diversity,"
> in addition to geographic diversity?  An answer to that 
> question might help me understand the practical 
> implementation issues related to your suggestion.
> 
> In my mind, Philip's recommendation of referring to 
> Constituencies is no different than the staff suggestion that 
> we require that every constituency receive a seat on Council. 
>  I believe that most of us disagree with that recommendation. 
> 
> Thanks.
> 
> Jon
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-gnso-restruc-dt@xxxxxxxxx
> [mailto:owner-gnso-restruc-dt@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Gomes, Chuck
> Sent: Wednesday, June 03, 2009 9:21 AM
> To: gnso-restruc-dt@xxxxxxxxx
> Subject: RE: [gnso-restruc-dt] Sectoral diversity now 
> constituency diversitygio
> 
> 
> Philip,
> 
> Wouldn't you agree that constituency diversity is important 
> whether it refers to an approved entity or not. For example, 
> financial services companies are not a defined, Board 
> approved entity (constituency) but they are an important 
> interest group within the commercial business community.
> 
> 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 9:10 AM
> > To: gnso-restruc-dt@xxxxxxxxx
> > Subject: [gnso-restruc-dt] Sectoral diversity now constituency 
> > diversity
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > Chuck, the point I am making is that we should focus 
> exactly on GNSO 
> > constituency diversity (as well s geography).
> > They are clear, definable and board approved entities.
> > 
> > Philip
> > 
> > 
> 
>