RE: [ga] 8. Registrants representation

["Roberto Gaetano" <roberto@xxxxxxxxx>]

Danny:

> 
> You will recall our earlier email discussion (December 5, 
> 2008) on the topic of a "house" for registrants that would 
> preclude the need for commercial/non-commercial 
> differentiation of registrants -- the approach that you now 
> offer (while not a "house") does serve to alleviate some of 
> my concerns.
> 
> Could I trouble you to get a "sense of the board" as to 
> whether the alternative that you have outlined sufficiently 
> comports with the Mission Clause in the Transitional NCSG Charter?  
> 
> If so, then I see no harm in moving forward as you suggest.


The Board does not have a religious approach on how the new constituencies
have to be formed.
The key issue here is favouring stakeholder participation. In the "old"
system, it was impossible for new stakeholders to self organize in
constituencies, because that would have altered the voting weight of the
incumbents. Now, it is possible. The only concern I personally have is to
have the addition of new pieces happen as organic growth, not as artificial
creation of bodies that might end up in being in conflict with the rest of
the house in which they should operate. I understand that this is a bit
cryptic as an advice, but it all boils up in being: "Make proposals that go
in the direction of higher representation of the diverse community".

Sorry for not being of bigger help.
Cheers,
Roberto