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

[Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@xxxxxxxxx>]

I strongly support Milton here. A quick scan of the proposed FY10 
budget and plan yields 9 occurrences of the word "outreach" but none 
of them seem to refer to the type of outreach mentioned here, or in 
the BGC proposal which ultimately led to the new Council structure, 
and which made reasonably clear that this was going to have to be an 
ICANN-funded program.
Perhaps it is in the budget/plan under some other rubric, and if so, 
I would appreciate having it pointed out to me.
Alan

At 05/06/2009 01:26 PM, Milton L Mueller wrote:

> I agree with the policy but don't like the last sentence. The "must 
> put into place outreach programs" language is what bothers me. To 
> whom is this obligation directed? As a noncommercial stakeholder who 
> has to struggle to support my own participation, I always bristle at 
> these "unfunded mandates" that tell me to spend even more of my time 
> and money to do "outreach" to unnamed others. It is a somewhat 
> emotional response, rooted in ICANN-fatigue. But politically 
> speaking I also resent the implication that the legitimacy of my own 
> participation - which I perceive as both a right and a necessity to 
> protect my own personal and organizational interests - is 
> conditional upon my investing resources in getting other 
> participants to show up. People are responsible for their own 
> interests. If these rules and outreach programs apply to ICANN and 
> its budget, fine. If you're throwing another burden on volunteer 
> stakeholders who already devote time, money and effort to ICANN, no way. Clari!
>  fy that and its ok with me.
>
> Milton Mueller
> Professor, Syracuse University School of Information Studies
> XS4All Professor, Delft University of Technology
> ------------------------------
> Internet Governance Project:
> http://internetgovernance.org
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: owner-gnso-restruc-dt@xxxxxxxxx
> > [mailto:owner-gnso-restruc-dt@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Avri Doria
> > Sent: Friday, June 05, 2009 11:04 AM
> > To: gnso-restruc-dt@xxxxxxxxx
> > Subject: Re: [gnso-restruc-dt] Q5 diversity by-law
> >
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > As the conversation on this has come to a lull and somewhat of an
> > impasse, I would like to suggest some phrasing that I hope helps in
> > reaching consensus on this important point.  In reading the
> > messages,
> > some of the important themes I picked up were:
> >
> > - there should be parity between the requirements on the SGs
> > - geographical diversity is necessary but difficult and may sometime
> > require exceptions
> > - other forms of diversity including but not limited to sector and
> > skill set are also important, but harder to define in a
> > manner that is
> > appropriate for by-laws.
> >
> > Building on a suggestion made by Jon, I suggest the following for
> > discussion:
> >
> > Stakeholder Groups should ensure their representation on the GNSO
> > Council is as diverse as possible, including but not limited to
> > geographical region, sector and in terms of skill set.  In order to
> > insure geographical diversity, no more then 1/3 of a single
> > Stakeholder groups representatives to the Council can come from any
> > single ICANN defined geographic region;  any exception to this
> > requirement must be approved by a 2/3 vote of both houses.  In terms
> > of other forms of diversity, SG rules and procedures as well as
> > outreach programs must be put into place to insure maximum possible
> > diversity in all areas.
> >
> >
> > thanks
> >
> > a.
> >
> >
> >
> >