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

["Tim Ruiz" <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

> 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