RE: [council] Draft Revisions Bylaws - GNSO Restructure
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@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Philip Sheppard
> Sent: Tuesday, April 21, 2009 5:45 AM
> To: council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> 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
>