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

[Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx>]

Hi,

In light of Board repsonse to Q5:

To the extent that the election by each SG of its Councilors are  
independent acts, the Bylaws should only state the principle of  
widening regional diversity as much as possible and practical.  
Consequently, the SG Charters have to incorporate compliance to this  
principle in their language.
Do we need to say more then:

Stakeholder Groups should, in their charters ensure their  
representation on the GNSO Council is as diverse as possible,  
including geography, GNSO Constituency, sector, ability and gender.
in the by-laws

a.


On 8 Jun 2009, at 14:23, Gomes, Chuck wrote:

> There is no way of avoiding impacts of the number of reps.  It just  
> comes down to which impacts are favored or not.  Avri's formula  
> makes the need to seek exceptions dependent on the number of reps.   
> That said, I am still optimistic that we can reach a compromise.
> Chuck
>
> From: Metalitz, Steven [mailto:met@xxxxxxx]
> Sent: Sunday, June 07, 2009 5:29 PM
> To: Gomes, Chuck; 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