RE: [gnso-restruc-dt] Followup from the meeting.
> The text you proposed _seems to_ only say that the > 3 seats CURRENTLY assigned to NCUC will fold into > NCSG. That's fine. Yes, that's all it does. > anything that permanently ties Council seats to > specific constituencies is not acceptable. Completely agree. Tim -------- Original Message -------- Subject: RE: [gnso-restruc-dt] Followup from the meeting. From: Milton L Mueller <mueller@xxxxxxx> Date: Tue, June 09, 2009 9:19 am To: Tim Ruiz <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx>, "Gomes,Chuck" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx> Cc: "avri@xxxxxxx" <avri@xxxxxxx>, "gnso-restruc-dt@xxxxxxxxx" <gnso-restruc-dt@xxxxxxxxx>, "Metalitz,Steven" <met@xxxxxxx> 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