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

[Milton L Mueller <mueller@xxxxxxx>]

Agree with Chuck that there is more than one way to look at parity here. 
I am willing to go either way: I like our original discussion group agreement 
(no more than 2 in either house) but would not block consensus on the other, 
stricter interpretation of parity; it seems to be a registrar-registry thing to 
work out. Up to Jon and Chuck, I guess. 

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 Gomes, Chuck
> Sent: Friday, June 05, 2009 4:17 PM
> To: Avri Doria; gnso-restruc-dt@xxxxxxxxx
> Subject: RE: [gnso-restruc-dt] Q5 diversity by-law
> 
> 
> Depends whether we think that there should be at least one 
> rep for each
> SG from each region within the limits of the seats.  Depends how you
> define parity.  It is not parity if the contracted SGs have to have a
> different region for each seat and the users house does not.
> 
> 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 3:30 PM
> > To: gnso-restruc-dt@xxxxxxxxx
> > Subject: Re: [gnso-restruc-dt] Q5 diversity by-law
> > 
> > 
> > Hi,
> > 
> > But the parity notion mentioned by Jon, took that into 
> > account I assume. Yes, with only 3, you would also need 3 
> > different regions and with 6 seats, you might have 2 from 
> > each of 3 regions.  Isn't that parity in the conditions for 
> > the stakeholder groups?  And if in some occasions it proves 
> > impossible, that is what the exceptions clause is for.
> > 
> > a.
> > 
> > On 5 Jun 2009, at 15:22, Gomes, Chuck wrote:
> > 
> > > 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.
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >
> > 
> > 
> 
>