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

["Tony Holmes" <tonyarholmes@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

I share the same concern as Steve. The ground for this appears to have
changed due to the previous rules, rather than looking to make this work
with the new structure. On that basis I support Philip's submission he made
earlier today.

 

Tony

 

  _____  

From: owner-gnso-restruc-dt@xxxxxxxxx
[mailto:owner-gnso-restruc-dt@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Metalitz, Steven
Sent: 07 June 2009 22:29
To: cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx; gnso-restruc-dt@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [gnso-restruc-dt] Q5 diversity by-law

 

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