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

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

I think I could live with that as long as 2/3 vote is for both houses.

Chuck 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Milton L Mueller [mailto:mueller@xxxxxxx] 
> Sent: Wednesday, June 03, 2009 10:49 AM
> To: Gomes, Chuck; Philip Sheppard; gnso-restruc-dt@xxxxxxxxx
> Subject: RE: [gnso-restruc-dt] Sectoral diversity noow 
> constituency diversity
> 
> 
> I think we are really getting off track here. We are supposed 
> to be discussing binding requirements regarding geographic 
> diversity that will be imposed at the GNSO level. This should 
> be a simple set of requirements that goes into the GNSO 
> rules. Now this has turned into a general discussion of the 
> characteristics SGs should look for in their Council 
> representatives. Please, let us not waste any more time on 
> this at the Council level. If Liz and Philip want to make 
> skills diversity or sectoral diversity a factor in their SG 
> procedures and bylaws, they are welcome to do so. If Chuck 
> wants his SG to have sectoral, gender or racial diversity 
> part of his SG guidelines or policies, then knock yourself 
> out, Chuck, but do it in the RySG meetings. Robin, Bill and 
> I'll  look after the NCSG, and Alan can do the same for ALAC. 
> In the meantime, let's settle on the geographic diversity 
> requirement for the GNSO. It seems we have consensus on the 
> basic elements of the discussion group proposal. There should 
> be no more than 2 reps from the same region, and exceptions 
> can be made with a 2/3 vote. Are we done yet? 
> 
> --MM
> 
> ________________________________________
> From: owner-gnso-restruc-dt@xxxxxxxxx 
> [owner-gnso-restruc-dt@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Gomes, Chuck 
> [cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx]
> Sent: Wednesday, June 03, 2009 8:58 AM
> To: Philip Sheppard; gnso-restruc-dt@xxxxxxxxx
> Subject: RE: [gnso-restruc-dt] Sectoral diversity noow 
> constituency diversity
> 
> 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
> >
> >
> >
> >
> 
>