RE: [gnso-restruc-dt] Followup from the meeting.

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

I think that is okay but if we do it for the NCUC we should do it for
all the others as well because they are all being reassigned, but I
don't think it is totally necessary because the intro sentence says,
"Upon the adoption of this Transition Article, the representatives on
the Generic Name Supporting Organization ("GNSO") Council from each of
the existing six Constituencies shall be appointed or elected consistent
with the number of Council seats allocated by its respective Stakeholder
Group subject to the following:"   I can go either way as long as we are
consistent for all six constituencies.

Chuck

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-gnso-restruc-dt@xxxxxxxxx 
> [mailto:owner-gnso-restruc-dt@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Tim Ruiz
> Sent: Tuesday, June 09, 2009 8:45 AM
> To: Metalitz,Steven
> Cc: avri@xxxxxxx; gnso-restruc-dt@xxxxxxxxx
> Subject: RE: [gnso-restruc-dt] Followup from the meeting.
> 
> 
> Then to clarify I suggest that XX.5.d be modified as follows:
> 
> d. The three seats currently assigned to the Non-Commercial 
> Users Constituency shall be reassigned as three *of the six* 
> seats of the Non-Commercial Stakeholder Group.
> 
> Added the text between the asterisks.
> 
> 
> Tim
> 
> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: Re: [gnso-restruc-dt] Followup from the meeting.
> From: "Metalitz, Steven" <met@xxxxxxx>
> Date: Tue, June 09, 2009 7:26 am
> To: <avri@xxxxxxx>, <gnso-restruc-dt@xxxxxxxxx>
> 
>  We won't know how other 3 will be chosen till Board approves 
> SG charter or makes some other decision.
> 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>
> Cc: Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx>
> Sent: Tue Jun 09 05:09:30 2009
> Subject: Re: [gnso-restruc-dt] Followup from the meeting.
> 
> 
> Hi,
> 
> I don't know.  I read that to mean that the 3 from NCUC were 
> to be assigned as three of the (six) NCSG.  but I am will 
> certainly fix the wording.  Any suggestions?
> 
> thanks
> 
> a.
> 
> On 9 Jun 2009, at 13:38, Tim Ruiz wrote:
> 
> > Avri,
> >
> > These two items do not jive. Shouldn't the latter be changed to 
> > "...increased to be six..."?
> >
> > Article X Section 1:
> > d. six representatives selected from the Non-Commercial Stakeholder 
> > Group; and
> >
> > Article XX Section 5:
> > d. The three seats currently assigned to the Non-Commercial Users 
> > Constituency shall be reassigned as three seats of the 
> Non-Commercial 
> > Stakeholder Group.
> >
> > Tim
> >
> > -------- Original Message --------
> > Subject: [gnso-restruc-dt] Followup from the meeting.
> > From: Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx>
> > Date: Mon, June 08, 2009 5:34 pm
> > To: gnso-restruc-dt@xxxxxxxxx
> >
> >
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > I have edited the text. It can be found at:
> > https://st.icann.org/gnso_transition/index.cgi?proposed_by_laws
> >
> > I think I caught it all but it needs to be checked.
> >
> > In terms of motions and voting, I propose the following:
> >
> > - the motion included below be put in the schedule of 24 
> June. I will 
> > put myself down as the person making the motion. It will of course 
> > need a second.
> >
> > - any wording changes that we can reach consensus on on 
> this list, can 
> > be treated as friendly amendments and just put in before the vote.
> > Since I will be making the motion of behalf of this team, it is the 
> > consensus of this team that will indicate whether it is a friendly 
> > amendment or not.
> >
> > - any changes we cannot reach consensus on, can be voted on as 
> > amendments before voting on the main motion. Of course someone will 
> > have to make and second these motions.
> >
> > By doing this, we can both present the rough consensus 
> position to the 
> > Board as well as the results of any minority positions.
> >
> > The motion:
> >
> > Whereas
> >
> > Insert long history here that includes, review, BCG, Board 
> approval of 
> > BCG, work of the team of the whole and SIC response: 
> (hopefully staff 
> > can help in writing this chronology)
> >
> > Resolved
> >
> > The GNSO recommends that the By-laws related to the GNSO council be 
> > amended to read as follows:
> >
> > insert the text either by inclusion or reference:
> > https://st.icann.org/gnso_transition/index.cgi?proposed_by_laws
> >
> >
> > thanks
> >
> > a.
> >
> >
> 
> 
>