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

["Tim Ruiz" <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

The reallocations in XX.5 match up with X.1 for all except NCUC/NCSG. My
suggested change for d makes X.5 more consistent with X.1. Whether or
not the reallocations as a whole reflect consistent *treatment* of the
constituencies is another issue.

Tim  

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: RE: [gnso-restruc-dt] Followup from the meeting.
From: "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, June 09, 2009 8:10 am
To: "Metalitz, Steven" <met@xxxxxxx>, "Tim Ruiz" <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: <avri@xxxxxxx>, <gnso-restruc-dt@xxxxxxxxx>

Steve,

Got it. Tim's change is fine.

Chuck 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Metalitz, Steven [mailto:met@xxxxxxx] 
> Sent: Tuesday, June 09, 2009 9:05 AM
> To: Gomes, Chuck; Tim Ruiz
> Cc: avri@xxxxxxx; gnso-restruc-dt@xxxxxxxxx
> Subject: RE: [gnso-restruc-dt] Followup from the meeting.
> 
> We can't be "consistent" because the constituencies are not being
> treated consistently. 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Gomes, Chuck [mailto:cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx]
> Sent: Tuesday, June 09, 2009 9:01 AM
> To: Tim Ruiz; Metalitz, Steven
> Cc: avri@xxxxxxx; gnso-restruc-dt@xxxxxxxxx
> Subject: RE: [gnso-restruc-dt] Followup from the meeting.
> 
> 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.
> > >
> > >
> > 
> > 
> > 
> 
>