[NCUC-DISCUSS] URGENT - Time sensitive What is your view on on the question of rebalancing the Nominating Committee (NomCom)
Stephanie E Perrin
stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca
Tue Jun 27 00:53:44 CEST 2023
The fault is not Caleb's it is mine. I have been working on that
draft. Judith Hellerstein was kind enough to draft the response to the
call for comments, and I had intended to circulate the draft for
comments this past weekend. Unfortunately a health emergency in my
family has dragged me away. There was quite a bit of discussion around
the meeting in Washington on this topic, and it also had come up at
Council. Council is just now preparing its draft response to the
Board. We have till the 30th and Julf is standing by to send the final
draft, so please lets not panic.
There is strong opposition to growing the Nomcom, as it grows it becomes
more unwieldy, and they are already working very hard. So I would submit
that asking for three delegates, just like the commercial group, is a
non-starter. However, the battle to get a seat for NPOC, at least at
the GNSO level, appears to be turning in our favour. Please see my
comments re the questions below, and expect to see a tidied up draft
comment shortly.
On 2023-06-26 5:50 p.m., Raoul Plommer wrote:
> Hi Caleb,
>
> You received that very email on 27th of April, and since you've been
> preparing the draft since, perhaps you could finally share your work
> with us so we could make that statement together as a stakeholder group?
>
> -Raoul
>
> On Mon, 26 Jun 2023 at 21:46, farzaneh badii
> <farzaneh.badii at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Where are NCSG's joint recommendations? NCUC can reinforce the
> message.
>
>
>
> Farzaneh
>
>
> On Mon, Jun 26, 2023 at 2:44 PM Caleb Olumuyiwa Ogundele
> <muyiwacaleb at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I believe NCUC can consolidate the response with the NCSG's
> joint recommendations.
>
> This will allow us to go out on a united front as non-commercial.
>
> On Mon, Jun 26, 2023 at 1:40 PM farzaneh badii
> <farzaneh.badii at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Benjamin,
>
> Not only do we need to respond, we should reach out to our
> friends and colleagues and tell them what the problem is.
> See the responses below:
>
> On Mon, Jun 26, 2023 at 1:57 PM Benjamin Akinmoyeje
> <benakin at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Dear NCUC members,
>
> Good day and I hope your week is going well.
> Thank you for participating in the NCUC Readout
> session. As discussed in the meeting today, please
> share your response to these questions to gather our
> community views.
>
> ICANN Board Chair Tripti Sinha is requesting feedback
> from your respective community groups on the question
> of rebalancing the Nominating Committee (NomCom) by
> **30 June 2023**. As noted in the letter, the ICANN
> Board wishes to engage with the community to
> understand the community’s views on this topic. The
> Board is specifically seeking input on the following
> questions:
>
> 1. What does it mean to have a balanced NomCom at a
> point in time? For example, what criteria would you
> apply to measure or assess whether the
> NomCom is balanced? And further, how can one test
> whether or not the NomCom is balanced?
>
>
>
> A balanced NomCom means that the noncommercial and
> commercial stakeholder groups as predicted have the same
> number of delegates. For example, if the Commercial Group
> has three delegates, the noncommercial group should have
> three delegates. This is the least that can be done when
> rebalancing.It should be remodeled based on GNSO council
> composition.
>
>
>
> 2. Do you support the view that the current
> composition of the NomCom needs to be rebalanced?
> Please explain why or why not.
>
> Yes it needs to be rebalanced because as we have argued
> the noncommercials have fewer delegates compared to the
> commercial stakeholder group. In every ICANN group, the
> commercial and noncommercial stakeholder groups should
> have equal number of delegates, irrespective of how many
> internal constituencies they each have./(SP see above, I
> doubt this has support. we just need to have members for
> each constituency, bearing in mind that the contracted
> parties do not have consitutuencies, and the At Large has
> regions not constituencies.)/
> Also the advisory committees either should be voting
> delegates or non-voting delegates. Perhaps because ICANN
> is privately led and the chair of GAC is a liaison on the
> board the nonvoting nomcom (which they have never
> appointed) might make sense but it is unclear why some
> advisory committees are voting and some are not. /
> /
>
/SP The recommendation has already been accepted to make all seats on
the NomCom voting/
>
>
> 3. How frequently does the balance need to be measured
> or assessed?
>
> After rebalancing, if the review of various ICANN
> structures lead to structural changes (which it rarely
> does) then we need to assess whether it should affect
> delegation on Nomcom.
>
/SP I think it best, as I have said at every PC committee when the
matter ever came up, to steer as clear of structural review as
possible. Lets agree on 10 years for NomCom review once we get this
settled, unless there is a sudden need to reassess. Reviews take time,
money, staff resources, and are exhausting our volunteers./
>
>
> 4. How do you suggest that the NomCom’s composition be
> rebalanced?
>
> Same number of delegates from Commercial and Noncommercial
> stakeholders group. If CSG has 3 delegates, NCSG has to
> have 3 delegates too. We don't necessarily ask for
> increasing the number of our delegates but we ask to
> reconsider the number of delegates CSG can have.
>
/SP We appear to be winning the argument on constituency representation,
lets settle for that./
>
>
>
>
> 5. Who should conduct this work, and how should it be
> conducted?
>
> The board should follow the third party reviewer
> recommendation.
>
/SP I believe the how refers to reallocation of NomCom reps./
>
>
>
> 6. How would your community group prioritize
> consideration of this issue
> within your planning efforts?
>
>
> This has been a priority issue for NCUC and NCSG since a
> long time. We are directly affected.
>
SP /Given that the NomCom reps are supposed to act independently of
their organizations, I would avoid saying that we are directly
affected. Obviously we would have had another seat years ago if
everyone in this organization had faith in that independence, and the
GAC might have surrendered the seat they have never used.....but we have
to have a strong belief in the independence and fair HR practices of the
new NomCom that will emerge after this review. We are the ones who are
short a seat, so clearly it has been on our priorities and it will
remain there until this fundamental injustice is corrected. To my mind,
we lack qualitative review of the actual outputs of the NomCom, and we
lack a substantive study of what the goals of a restructured nomcom
might be. ICANN is 25, and there are plenty of folks around who have
been here all that time. What does it mean to get new blood to join
ICANN from outside the membership groups? What does the MS model need
after 25 years? How did the review committee discuss this issue? are
there studies?/
/Those of you who sat on these groups, and there are several of you out
there who did, please weigh in./
Kind regards, and apologies for the failure to send the draft this
weekend as planned. Life gets in the way.....
Stephanie Perrin
>
> Additional background on the work to date on
> this topic, including by the NomCom Review
> Implementation Working Group that
> was set up to implement the outcomes of the Second
> NomCom Review (see
> https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/correspondence
>
>
> <https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/correspondence>
> for each of the
> letters sent to all 21 SOAC leaders). In addition, on
> 25 May 2023, the
> Chair of the Board’s Organizational Effectiveness
> Committee, Katrina
> Sataki, and members of ICANN org’s Reviews Support &
> Accountability team
> gave a presentation to the GNSO Council that covered
> the present
> structure of NomCom, a brief history of the
> rebalancing matter and
> forthcoming actions. As such, you may find the
> presentation
> <https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/policy/2023/presentation/presentation-gnso-council-nomcom-rebalancing-revised-25may23-en.pdf
> <https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/policy/2023/presentation/presentation-gnso-council-nomcom-rebalancing-revised-25may23-en.pdf>> and
> the recording
> <https://icann.zoom.us/rec/share/7pSQ37mSB5wGz8-msQS2PDpzhQ6VdJQISm2SYmWKwfFMWFM_Z6FdMsFiipNyIV-E.J55mm5SBjoZJS9d9?startTime=1684990882000> (from
> 00:14:10 - 00:31:38) helpful in discussing any planned
> feedback with
> your members.
> _______________________________________________
> Ncuc-discuss mailing list
> Ncuc-discuss at lists.ncuc.org
> https://lists.ncuc.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ncuc-discuss
>
> _______________________________________________
> Ncuc-discuss mailing list
> Ncuc-discuss at lists.ncuc.org
> https://lists.ncuc.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ncuc-discuss
>
>
>
> --
> *Caleb Ogundele*
> Email: muyiwacaleb at gmail.com
>
> _______________________________________________
> Ncuc-discuss mailing list
> Ncuc-discuss at lists.ncuc.org
> https://lists.ncuc.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ncuc-discuss
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Ncuc-discuss mailing list
> Ncuc-discuss at lists.ncuc.org
> https://lists.ncuc.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ncuc-discuss
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncuc.org/pipermail/ncuc-discuss/attachments/20230626/93c7af19/attachment.htm>
More information about the Ncuc-discuss
mailing list