Re: [council] Changes

[William Drake <william.drake@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Jun 10, 2010, at 10:41 PM, Rosette, Kristina wrote:

> Proposed changes.
> 
> 1.  Add after the first sentence in point 4:  If the list meets the 
> above-mentioned diversity objectives, the Council will consider the list of 
> endorsements to be deemed final forwarded to ICANN.
> 
> 
Sure, parallel restatement
> 2.  Change the now-third sentence of point 4 to read:  If, however, . . . …
> 

so just add however, ja?


> 3.  Change third bullet of #2 to read:  Each stakeholder group is encouraged 
> to (a) identify in its internal deliberations and (b) notify Council of one 
> or two additional candidates whom it could support, if available, in the 
> event that the diversity procedure outlined in item 4 below is utilized.  
> 

This would mean that the council is engaging in a compulsory weeding of any 
sized pool down to 4-8 "backups" who may or may not help us meet the diversity 
requirement.  More work for everyone in order to preclude a council decision by 
60% of both houses.  The DT was trying to simplify rather than complicate the 
process.

Would help to hear how more people feel about this, if they do
> 4.  Change the now-third sentence of point 4 to read: If, however, the list 
> does not meet the above mentioned diversity objectives, the Council as a 
> whole may choose to endorse up to two additional candidates, from among those 
> identified by the stakeholder groups under item 2, who would help to give the 
> list of GNSO nominees the desired balance.  If consideration of these 
> additional stakeholder group-identified candidates does not meet the 
> diversity objectives, the Council may refer to the GNSO applicant pool to 
> identify these additional candidates.
>