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

["Metalitz, Steven" <met@xxxxxxx>]

Exactly the same problem I expressed a week ago. It makes the degree of 
geographic diversity contingent on the number of reps the SG decided to send to 
the council. There was no suggestion this would have been a factor to consider 
when that number was chosen last fall. 

I thought we had resolved this issue with Avri's formulation. Can you explain 
your objection to that re geo diversity? 
Sent via blackberry mobile. Please excuse tone and typoes. 

________________________________

From: Gomes, Chuck 
To: Metalitz, Steven; gnso-restruc-dt@xxxxxxxxx 
Sent: Sun Jun 07 12:19:25 2009
Subject: RE: [gnso-restruc-dt] Q5 diversity by-law 


Steve, 
 
It doesn't talk about other forms of diversity.  It is simpler.  It is the same 
for all SGs.  
 
Do you have a problem with any element of it?  If so, please explain so we can 
try to move forward.
 
Chuck


________________________________

        From: Metalitz, Steven [mailto:met@xxxxxxx] 
        Sent: Sunday, June 07, 2009 12:50 PM
        To: Gomes, Chuck; gnso-restruc-dt@xxxxxxxxx
        Subject: Re: [gnso-restruc-dt] Q5 diversity by-law
        
        

        Chuck, how is this any different from your original (with Olga and 
Milton) proposal? 
        
        Steve
        Sent via blackberry mobile. Please excuse tone and typoes.
        
        ----- Original Message -----
        From: owner-gnso-restruc-dt@xxxxxxxxx <owner-gnso-restruc-dt@xxxxxxxxx>
        To: gnso-restruc-dt@xxxxxxxxx <gnso-restruc-dt@xxxxxxxxx>
        Sent: Sun Jun 07 06:59:15 2009
        Subject: RE: [gnso-restruc-dt] Q5 diversity by-law
        
        
        To continue to try to reach closure on Q5 relating to diversity
        requirements in the Bylaws, I would like to ask the following questions
        and suggest some approaches.
        
        It seems to me that it is desirable that every geographic region is
        represented on the Council to the maximum extent possible for each SG
        assuming that other diversity criteria are not unreasonably compromised.
        Is there any disagreement on this?
        
        I also believe that everyone seems to support the concept of an
        exception mechanism that requires high approval of both houses.
        
        Thirdly, no one seems to have disagreed that there should be no more
        than two seats from any geographic region.
        
        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?
        
        Chuck