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.