ICANN ICANN Email List Archives

[gnso-restruc-dt]


<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

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

  • To: gnso-restruc-dt@xxxxxxxxx
  • Subject: Re: [gnso-restruc-dt] Q5 diversity by-law
  • From: Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx>
  • Date: Mon, 8 Jun 2009 14:55:32 +0200


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







<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Cookies Policy