RE: [gnso-restruc-dt] Changes

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

Please see my added comments below.  Regardless of what happens with
these three remaining issues or any others that come up, I think it is
very important that the clean document be distributed for constituency
and public review NLT end of the day today, even if we have a few place
holders where additional work is needed.

Chuck

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-gnso-restruc-dt@xxxxxxxxx 
> [mailto:owner-gnso-restruc-dt@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Metalitz, Steven
> Sent: Wednesday, June 10, 2009 4:51 PM
> To: Avri Doria; gnso-restruc-dt@xxxxxxxxx
> Subject: RE: [gnso-restruc-dt] Changes
> 
> 
> See responses in line below.  
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-gnso-restruc-dt@xxxxxxxxx
> [mailto:owner-gnso-restruc-dt@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Avri Doria
> Sent: Wednesday, June 10, 2009 4:24 PM
> To: gnso-restruc-dt@xxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: [gnso-restruc-dt] Changes
> 
> 
> Hi,
> 
> Three questions.
> 
> Regarding:
> 
> > Appointee voting representative shall be assigned to each 
> House by the 
> > Nominating Committee at the time of appointment.
> >
> 
> I had understood Raimundo to be saying that each year, the Nomcom  
> could, if it so desired, reorient the NCA in terms of houses and  
> homelessness.  If so, this is different then "at time of appointment".
> 
> Did you intend to offer up a different proposal? or did you 
> understand  
> the Board's position differently?
> 
> SJM:  We could drop "at time of appointment" if we want to accommodate
> Raimundo but it needs to be specified who assigns. 

CG: Steve's suggested fix for this question seems like a good approach
to me. 
 
> 
> 2. Regarding:
> 
> > selections to fill Seats 13 and 14 on the ICANN Board by written  
> > ballot or by action at a meeting, [placeholder regarding manner of  
> > selection - TBD by Board.]
> 
> My understanding had been that the Board did not necessarily want to  
> make that decision before July 31 as required by the timetable.    I  
> am not sure that one can leave in a placeholder such as that 
> in the by- 
> laws, but I am not lawyer.  If it is not possible to leave a  
> placeholder, do you mean to ask the Board to indeed make this 
> decision  
> by July 31st?
> 
> SJM:  The board can remove the placeholder by making a 
> decision, but the
> by-laws should specify how these two seats are filled.

CG: I suggest for the moment that we leave the placeholder with the
intent to remove it before the Council votes on the changes in Sydney
and in the meantime we seek direction from the SIC.  If I understood
Raimundo correctly, the SIC/Board wanted to postpone resolution of this
issue until the Board Review process is completed; it seems to me that
that could extend beyond 31 July, considering that the comment period
for the second interim report doesn't end until 5 July and I presume
there will be a final report and an implementation plan that each may
have comment periods.
  
> 
> 3. Regarding:
> 
> > meeting in October 2009, or another date the Board may 
> designate by  
> > resolution,
> 
> Are you suggesting that we should not, or cannot, aim to have the  
> bicameral council seated by Seoul?
> 
> SJM:  We can and should aim to do that but no one can 
> guarantee that we
> will not miss.

CG: Agree, meaning that the wording Avri included is probably the best
we can do.
 
> 
> Thanks for fixing all the errors.
> 
> a.
> 
> 
> 
> On 10 Jun 2009, at 21:46, Metalitz, Steven wrote:
> 
> > <redline of AD text of 061009 (2266360).DOC>
> 
> 
> 
> 
>