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

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

I don't think so Avri.  First of all, no more than 1/3 of a single SG
for the contracted house would mean that no more than one could be from
the same region so we wouldn't need "no more than two Stakeholder Group
Council representatives may be from the same ICANN geographic region".
More importantly, no more than 1/3 of a single SG for the users house
would mean that an SG could have two representatives from each of three
regions and none from two other regions.

Chuck 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-gnso-restruc-dt@xxxxxxxxx 
> [mailto:owner-gnso-restruc-dt@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Avri Doria
> Sent: Friday, June 05, 2009 2:57 PM
> To: gnso-restruc-dt@xxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: [gnso-restruc-dt] Q5 diversity by-law
> 
> 
> Hi,
> 
> Doesn't:
> 
> > In order to insure geographical diversity, no more then
> > 1/3 of a single Stakeholder group's representatives to the 
> Council can 
> > come from any single ICANN defined geographic region;
> 
> as suggested by Jon, cover those points?
> 
> a.
> 
> 
> On 5 Jun 2009, at 14:16, Gomes, Chuck wrote:
> 
> > Thanks Avri.  You made some good suggestions that should help us on 
> > this one.
> >
> > I would like to suggest though that you left out a couple elements 
> > that I think those of us on the small group were at least close to 
> > agreement on, recongizing that I cannot speak for the others:
> >
> > - To the extent possible, every stakeholder group should select 
> > Council representatives from different geographic regions.  
> (Note that 
> > this wording is new but I felt like the four of us supported this.)
> >
> > - "In all cases no more than two Stakeholder Group Council 
> > representatives may be from the same ICANN geographic region."
> >
> > First of all, let's see if there is support for these to 
> statements.  
> > If there is, then it wouldn't be hard to combine them with what you 
> > proposed.
> >
> > Chuck
> >
> >> -----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.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> 
>