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

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

No Alan.  Maybe I didn't word it effectively.  What I tried to say was
that each SG would only have to have different regions for 3 reps for
the contracted SGs and 5 reps for the noncontracted SGs.  Can someone
suggest a better to way to say it?

Chuck 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-gnso-restruc-dt@xxxxxxxxx 
> [mailto:owner-gnso-restruc-dt@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Alan Greenberg
> Sent: Sunday, June 07, 2009 11:55 AM
> To: gnso-restruc-dt@xxxxxxxxx
> Subject: RE: [gnso-restruc-dt] Q5 diversity by-law
> 
> 
> 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?
> 
>