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@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Philip Sheppard Sent: Tuesday, April 21, 2009 5:45 AM To: council@gnso.icann.org 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