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

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

I was not talking about consistent treatment of constituencies but only
the wording of the clause.  Please ignore my comment because I think
Tim's change is probably okay.

Chuck 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Tim Ruiz [mailto:tim@xxxxxxxxxxx] 
> Sent: Tuesday, June 09, 2009 9:19 AM
> To: Gomes, Chuck
> Cc: avri@xxxxxxx; gnso-restruc-dt@xxxxxxxxx; Metalitz,Steven
> Subject: RE: [gnso-restruc-dt] Followup from the meeting.
> 
> 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.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > 
> >
> 
>