RE: [council] Draft Revisions Bylaws - GNSO Restructure

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

Philip,

In a very brief review of some of the proposed edits, it appears to me
that some of them are contrary to the Board approved recommendations.
Is that correct or am I missing something?

Chuck 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx 
> [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Philip Sheppard
> Sent: Tuesday, April 21, 2009 5:45 AM
> To: council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: [council] Draft Revisions Bylaws - GNSO Restructure
> 
> 
> Please find attached a proposed red-line of the proposed 
> draft by-laws revision.
> These are submitted for discussion and are preliminary.
> There are submitted on behalf of the BC, IPC, and ISPs.
> 
> Highlights include:
> -  the naming of certain SGs and Houses. In particular the 
> House to which we will belong should be referred to as the 
> "Users & Providers House". As agreed with our non-commercial 
> colleagues in Mexico we do not wish to be defined in the 
> negative!  The addition of "providers" to "Users" reflects 
> the unique nature of the ISPs.
> -  specificity on the Nom Com
> -  a placemark on seat numbers for the NCISG.
> 
> Notwithstanding these comments, Council should be aware that 
> the recent petition from the IDN group for a constituency 
> seems to drive a coach and horses through the neat division 
> of Council into two Houses. That petition seeks to create a 
> Constituency of inter alia registries, registrars, commercial 
> and non-commercial bodies. With apologies to  Jeff Beck, this 
> constituency would appear to be: "everywhere and nowhere 
> baby, that's where you're at."
> 
> 
> Philip
>