[PC-NCSG] Revised IPC Motion

[Tapani Tarvainen]

On Jun 29 11:51, Matthew Shears (mshears at cdt.org) wrote:

> >>2. The Drafting Team shall comprise those volunteers from the GNSO
> >>community which are identified by their Constituencies and
> >>Stakeholder Groups who express interests*and/or have a* [can
> >>demonstrate reasonable] knowledge of or experience with the process
> >>of revising the ICANN Bylaws _or GNSO operating procedures_.
> >>Constituencies and Stakeholder Groups are requested to identify
> >>volunteers by letter to the GNSCO Council Chair by 22 July 2016.
> >Question: who should they demonstrate their knowledge or experience?

> I am suggesting that the language in the brackets be taken out.

Ah. So we're in perfect agreement there.

> >To me such language suggests SGs/constituencies would not be allowed
> >to choose their own representatives but only suggest then for someone
> >higher up to approve, or not.
> Agree - "select" would be better

Yes.

> >>If we want this to be done at the SG level do we need/want a reference to
> >>constituencies?
> >Don't we want language to ensure there will be enough our people,
> >that is, something explicitly specifying equal numbers by SG
> >(by constituency count we'd lose)?
> >
> >Or am I missing something?
> Agree.

So something like "... are selected by their Stakeholder Groups ..."?

-- 
Tapani Tarvainen