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

["Cheryl Preston" <PRESTONC@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

The purpose of ICANN by-laws, as well as stakeholder group charters, is to 
create a framework that permits healthy input from all present and future 
stakeholders with legitimate interest in Domain Name policy.  It is not helpful 
to suggest that the by-laws and charters need not contain principles or 
protections beyond the preferences of the 1-3 individuals suggested here as 
having ownership over each stakeholder group.  
 
The notion that Robin, Bill and Milton are unaccountable to others or to 
broader principles that may not serve their interests surely is not the intent 
of the SIC or the restructuring process.
 
Cheryl B. Preston
Edwin M. Thomas
Professor of Law
J. Reuben Clark Law School
Brigham Young University
434 JRCB
Provo, UT 84602
(801) 422-2312
prestonc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 

>>> Milton L Mueller <mueller@xxxxxxx> 6/3/2009 8:49 AM >>>


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
>
>
>
>