ICANN ICANN Email List Archives


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

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

  • To: "Milton L Mueller" <mueller@xxxxxxx>, "Tim Ruiz" <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Subject: RE: [gnso-restruc-dt] Followup from the meeting.
  • From: "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Tue, 9 Jun 2009 10:23:20 -0400

I understand that and I do not believe that Tim's suggested change
affects that at all.


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Milton L Mueller [mailto:mueller@xxxxxxx] 
> Sent: Tuesday, June 09, 2009 10:20 AM
> To: Tim Ruiz; Gomes, Chuck
> Cc: avri@xxxxxxx; gnso-restruc-dt@xxxxxxxxx; Metalitz,Steven
> Subject: RE: [gnso-restruc-dt] Followup from the meeting.
> Tim
> I will need an important clarification on this. Forgive me 
> but I was not on the call.
> The text you proposed _seems to_ only say that the 3 seats 
> CURRENTLY assigned to NCUC will fold into NCSG. That's fine. 
> I hope that it doesn't mean, that the seats are tied to NCUC 
> and NCUC will still exist, and that there will be some 
> constituency-based allocation of Council seats.
> Once the NCSG is created, there isn't supposed to be an NCUC 
> anymore. A generic constituency for "noncommercial users" 
> simply doesn't make sense as one constituency in a 
> "Noncommercial Stakeholders Group." The idea of our charter 
> is that NCSG would elect its Council seats on an integrated 
> basis, not on the basis of constituencies. 
> So anything that permanently ties Council seats to specific 
> constituencies is not acceptable.
> Does everyone understand it this way? 
> --MM

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

Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Cookies Policy