Hello, Thanks to Rosemary for her comments, I just want to comment that one at 3.1 NCSG Allocation.: "We might need a “where possible” here…..remembering experience with Review Team nominees process" the RT is not the suitable example, because we had the CSG having many applicants and I guess that since the "diversity" within that SG, we had all those Americans applicants except one from Europe. I am not in favor in relaxing requirement of geographical diversity (I hope that we can add the gender diversity requirement too) . Regards Rafik 2010/5/3 Avri Doria <[log in to unmask]> > Hi, > > I have read through your extensive edits and on first reading, I have a > question and a comment: > > > - the question: I do not understand why you have highlighted section in > yellow. do you mean that the charter should have these things highlighted. > > - On the question of constituencies. > > The board has already approved two Stakeholder Groups charters that do not > have constituencies. As I understood our conversations with the SIC and > the Board they are not requiring constituencies so long as we have a clear > charter and we explain the decisions we have made. This is the purpose of > the cover letter which is still being worked. > > Yours is the first call I have seen from within the NCSG for us to continue > with formal constituencies and I do not know if there is any other support > for it with the NCSG membership. > > At this point unless I see strong support from the members, I do not think > it is something we should change. > > I will look through the rest of your proposed edits in detail. > > a. > > On 2 May 2010, at 22:31, Rosemary Sinclair wrote: > > > Hi Avri and everyone > > > > Some thoughts for discussion > > > > Cheers > > > > Rosemary > > > > Rosemary Sinclair > > Managing Director, ATUG > > Chairman, INTUG > > T: +61 2 94958901 F: +61 2 94193889 > > M: +61 413734490 > > Email: [log in to unmask] > > Skype: rasinclair >