RE: [council] Changes

["Rosette, Kristina" <krosette@xxxxxxx>]

Bill,
 
apologies. didn't see your message during the call. 
 
#2:  yes
 
#3:  Understood.  To the IPC, however, having a slightly more
complicated process at the SG level is far preferable to having the
Council take on an SG role and make nominations independent of the
community.  If that's absolutely necessary, the circumstances under
which the Council can do so should, in the IPC's view, be narrow,
specifically delineated, and of "a last resort" nature. That's what the
proposed amendments are intended to do.
 
K 
________________________________

From: William Drake [mailto:william.drake@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] 
Sent: Thursday, June 10, 2010 5:01 PM
To: Rosette, Kristina
Cc: council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [council] Changes




        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.