<html>
<body>
Clearly, first option for both are more acceptable to me. However, for
voting a candidate each member should not be allowed to vote more than
two votes. Similarly, for geographic representation, each region should
not have more than two seats, but it would be great, if at least 4
regions could be represented among 6. Regarding EC and PC, seems they are
alright.<br><br>
Thanking you,<br>
Hakik<br><br>
At 12:56 PM 11/5/2008, Milton L Mueller wrote:<br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite=""><font size=2>Greetings
members,<br>
Here at Cairo we have had some very useful discussions with Board
members, ALAC and the business constituencies about the shape of the new
Noncommercial Stakeholders Group. We have promised to give the Board
Governance Committee a rough draft of the charter for the new NCSG by the
end of this month. <br>
There were a couple of issues or decisions that were controversial or
just difficult to know what is best. We wanted to solicit your opinion
about that. Please give us your input on the items below<br>
<br>
Two of the questions relate to electing GNSO Councilors. The other is
just a question about organizational structure<br>
<br>
In the future we will need to elect 6 GNSO Councilors.<br>
<br>
Voting method for GNSO Council representatives<br>
=====================================<br>
V1) Should each member give one vote to 6 candidates? <br>
V2) Should we allow members to concentrate and distribute their votes,
e.g., assign all 6 votes to one candidate, or 3 votes to 2 candidates, or
2 votes to 3 candidates?<br>
The concentrated vote method would increase the chances that minorities
with strong preferences would be represented on the Council. It would, as
a result, decrease the solidarity of the NCSG as a voting bloc and reduce
the need for Council candidates to try to represent the stakeholder group
as a whole. Most of the members meeting here favored Option 1 because
they wanted Council members to have a broader appeal, but at least one
favored the concentrated method. There are also some concerns about the
procedural complexity of concentrated voting.<br>
<br>
Geographic representation<br>
====================<br>
There are 6 Council seats and 5 ICANN geographic regions. What geographic
representation rule do we follow? <br>
Two different options were proposed:<br>
G1) A simple rule that no region can have more than two (2) council
seats<br>
G2) A rule that at least 4 regions must be represented in the outcome.
<br>
I think there was agreement that the GNSO Council position is important
and very demanding, so no one should get elected to it solely because of
their regional origin; they should compete with candidates from other
regions on the basis of their qualifications and commitment to the job.
So that is why we did not just say that the Council seats should <br>
<br>
Rule G1 would mean that you could have a minimum of three regions
represented on the Council (2 from each of 3 regions)<br>
Rule G2 would mean that 4 regions would be represented, but one region
might have as many as 3 of the 6 seats<br>
<br>
Executive Committee – Policy Committee Structure<br>
======================================<br>
Here we are just asking for comment on organizational structure. <br>
<br>
We seemed to come to an agreement on: <br>
An _<i>Executive Committee</i>_ that consists of:
<ul>
<li>Chair</font>
<li><font size=2>A Chair-appointed Secretary-Treasurer</font>
<li><font size=2>Two others elected by constituencies (one vote per
constituency)</font>
</ul><font size=2>The executive committee handled administrative tasks
such as membership reviews, fund allocations, meeting agendas,
voting<br>
<br>
A _<i>Policy committee</i>_ that consists of:<br>
Elected GNSO Councilors<br>
One representative from each constituency <br>
The Policy Committee
<ul>
<li>Governs statements issued in name of NCSG</font>
<li><font size=2>Initiates policy proceedings on behalf of NCSG</font>
<li><font size=2>Can provide guidance to Councilors - upon request, no
need for vote</font>
</ul><font size=2> <br>
What do you think of this structure? <br>
Apologies for the length of this message, but we do need your input on
these issues<br>
<br>
</font><br>
-- <br>
This message has been scanned for viruses and <br>
dangerous content by
<a href="http://www.mailscanner.info/"><b>MailScanner</a></b>, and is
<br>
believed to be clean. </blockquote></body>
</html>