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

[Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@xxxxxxxxx>]

As I read that, the non-contracted SGs would need an exemption 
potentially every year (assuming we stay at 5 regions), effectively 
meaning that the entire Council must approve one of their 
Councillors. I find that wrong on several counts.
Also the "up to the number of seats allocated for that SG" is really 
redundant - there is no way to go above, and the previous part of the 
sentence covers all below the limit. I think a simple change in that 
phrase addresses both issues.
"Each GNSO Stakeholder Group (SG) Council Representative shall be 
selected from a different ICANN geographic region up to the number of 
ICANN regions. Any exceptions to this requirement shall require a 2/3 
vote of both houses but in no case shall more than two 
representatives come from the same geographic region."
Alan

At 07/06/2009 09:59 AM, Gomes, Chuck wrote:
> If all of the above are true, then here is some possible language:
>
> "Each GNSO Stakeholder Group (SG) Council Representative shall be
> selected from a different ICANN geographic region up to the number of
> seats allocated for that SG.  Any exceptions to this requirement shall
> require a 2/3 vote of both houses but in no case shall more than two
> representatives come from the same geographic region."
>
> Thoughts?